If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

imported post

TOLEDO, Ohio – A woman who said she was raped along a street in daylight as motorists drove past is upset that no one came to her rescue.

The 26-year-old woman told The Blade newspaper in an interview published Thursday that she yelled for help and noticed at least two cars drive by. Police arrested a teenage boy who lives nearby in the alleged attack and said he confessed.

"I'm ticked off because people were doing nothing. Just driving by. What kind of humans are we becoming?" she said.

The woman said she was attacked Tuesday afternoon as she was walking from a friend's house to a library in a neighborhood of densely packed detached homes. The assailant had a pair of scissors and said he would cut her if she made a sound, the woman said.

She said after the assailant fled, she asked a pedestrian talking on his cell phone if she could use the phone to call for help. He kept walking, she said.

Police said several drivers saw the attack and some called 911, but the witnesses were unsure if the public act was consensual and might not have been aware that they were witnessing a rape. One driver slowed down and beeped the car horn; another turned around to return to the scene and saw a person running away, police said.

Detectives got a description of the suspect from witnesses, interviewed neighbors and school officials and later arrested Anferney Fontenet, a 15-year-old boy, at his house, where he lives with his mother and sister, Sgt. Sam Harris said Thursday.

Fontenet was arraigned in juvenile court on charges of rape and robbery. It wasn't immediately clear if he had an attorney. Prosecutors said Thursday they would seek to have Fontenet tried as an adult.

Harris said the teen confessed but offered no motive.

"He told us that he saw the woman walking alone on the street and in his mind he determined that he was going to have sex with her," Harris said.

Fontenet told police he was aware of car horns beeping but didn't stop his attack, Harris said. He also took the woman's cell phone when it rang during the attack, police said.

The boy, who was being held in a juvenile detention center, doesn't have a criminal record.

The woman's mother told The Blade that her daughter lives in a group home and has bipolar disorder and Asperger's syndrome.

The newspaper didn't identify the woman, citing its policy of not naming alleged rape victims. The Associated Press also doesn't name those who say they have been sexually assaulted.

A juvenile convicted of rape could face one to three years in detention or be held to age 21, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Lori Olender said. A juvenile convicted of robbery could face one year of detention or be held to age 21, she said.

An adult would face three to 10 years in prison on a rape conviction and two to eight years in prison on a robbery conviction, she said.

imported post

1. I'm not blaming her for what happened, but I must say "She should have been armed." Even if it's "illegal" inOhio to do so she should havehad SOMETHING on her. Especially women and the elderly (like WE aill all be, if we live long enough), who are prime crime victims. If it IS illegal inOhio to be armed, she should bring suit aganst the state of Ohio for denying her the means to exercise her right of self-defense. IfOhio DOES allow her to CC with a permit (if it's not an OC state), then she SHOULD have gotten a concealed permit.

So many people think things like this won't happen to them personally (part of the herd instinct). When it DOES happen,it's too late to wake up. NOW, she has this psychological scar FOR LIFE.

2. You can't depend on ANYONE -- even the police (not blaming THEM, either, as they can't be everywhere) -- except yourself. Again, be armed at all times.

3. The POS should be execucted, whether it's a damn teenager or not. Of course, this won't happen.

4. If someone HAD gotten out of his/her car and shot the punk in the backof the head on the spot (and in the act) -- and although that would have been the RIGHT thing to do -- he/she probably would be in big legal trouble. THAT also is criminal.

This incident is disgraceful in that no one got out to help...but that's how it is nowadays.

imported post

It is tragic what happened to her and shameful how the public responded. At least they nabbed the perp. Broad daylight no less!

However, this is not a 'normal' case. With this individual being reported as bi-polar, as well as diagnosed with Aspergers (serious social communication issues),should NOT have/operate a firearm, period. Every state in the Union has laws forbidding this for good reasonand the good ol' 4473 covers this issue too. Not sure what USC # is, but it could be found...

Bi-polar is not conducive to proper judgement, not even close. Beyond that she is living in a group home(likely others with mental inadequacies of some type)and that is certainly not a place to introduce firearms. Other than being a legal issue, it's a practical issue.

What to do? It ain't simple, but for starters, the group home supervisorshould make sure that no woman leaves without another person to accompany them. A bi-polar/Aspergers individual probably should be out alone anyway. Shame on the group home for not taking care of this individual as they are charged to do. We(society) are supposed to protect those among us who cannot protect themselves and that is part of the responsibility of this lady's group home/guardian.

imported post

The RIGHT to Bear Arms is UNCONDITIONAL. Its sad to see those of you who so easily want to throw someone elses rights away. Mental or not, she has the RIGHT to bear arms. If she goes off and is dangerous, it is the RIGHT of others to take her out.

imported post

Does "everyone" mean gangsters and criminals, too, as well as "mentals?"

Yes, if you give "mentals," criminals and gangsters the right to OC, then you sure better give EVERYONE ELSE theright to OC also...they'll need it! At least at first, before all the criminal trash/nut cases are weeded out via "tragic incidents." ;-)

In principle, I agree with the concept of "Let everyone carry and if they "misbehave" with their gun, they get charged/shot by someone," butI guess "letting everyone carry" isn't ever likely to happen (except in a Post War Apocalypse scenario maybe like The Postman). But in the "civilized" society we have today, I don't think so.

Yes, you'll ALWAYS have mental cases (AND criminals, as we know)with guns but it will require most people to be armed so there LIKELY will be someone (preferably multiple people)armed nearby who can take said nutcase/criminal out when an incident happens. I don't think that'd be likely at all.

Would most people carry if they were allowed to?

I'd say NO, hardly ANYONE would, OC or CC, even if allowed. Considering that of all the people in each state QUALIFIED/ELIGIBLE to get a CC, only something like3% do, and of that group even, SOME still do not carry (they just have a permit to do so if they wanted to).If that low # of people CCing would also apply to people OCing-- then there'd only be 3% out there as "sheepdogs" (OCing). Even if some people CCed and others OCed, it'd still not be 6% because lots of people with CC permitswould sometimes CC and sometimes OC...so I don't think you could add 3% of people CCing to 3% of people OCing and get a "whopping" 6%.

But even if it WERE 6% going about armed (CC or OC),that wouldn't be enough of a presence out there on the streets (let alone in restuarants. schools, businesses to deal with shooting rampages THERE) to make it likelythere'd be someone armed nearby to "rescue" anyone or stop somenut-case/criminal "shooter."

As for OCing only -- if it were allowed for EVERYONE --I believe it'd probbaly be LESS than 3%, maybe only 0.1% (guessing) of people would OC because most people are too timid -- even whenit comes to exercising their rights -- so they wouldn't wantanyone to SEE them carrying in order toavoid stops/questions from cops (until they get "educated" about the law), or to deal with "evil eye" looks (or verbal beratings) from other people (naive helpless liberals) who freak out at even seeing a gun. So they'd prefer to be one of the 3% (maybe) who carry concealed.

So, OC for everyone, regardless of their saneness or criminality?

Okay, I can go with that -- but at first there'd probably be a whole lot of people getting shot before the mentals/criminals/gangs are "atritted" to a point they are no longer an issue (so okay, let's go ahead and get THAT over with) -- but I don't see howit will ever happen with the laws/politicians we have now andcan expect tohave in the future -- since regradless of all the BS about "change" we hear EVERY ELECTION YEAR (not just re: Obama's campaign), we just get MORE OF THE SAME low-quality mediocre "leadership" (and don't forget the millions of sorry, shallow, stupid people who voted for them -- what can you do about them?). It seems that only if society collapsed would we be free to do something like"OC for ALL" -- in fact, we'd HAVE to in order to survive -- but that'd be more like a Medieval feudal system reappearing thanthe "more civilized" systemwe have now.

What we have NOW in Texas to work with is CC, and trying to get OC passed. If other states have allowed OC with no permitting system (no background check, etc.) -- in spite of mentals (or others)who also would be allowed to OC under a no-permit system -- then I think AT LEAST TEXAS should be one of those states.

EDIT: All Americans should have the SAME basic rights, and that includes Self-Defense...regardless of what state they live in. This is one area I believe some "greater power" than the states is called for, but I'm not advocating federal "intrusion" into states' rights, but rather SOME "higher authority" to correct statesTHAT deny/severely restrict or"infringe" upon BASIC civil rights.The SCOTUS is supposed to do that? Maybe, but it can choose to hear or not hear whatever cases come before it...you can't FORCE it to deal with certain issues apparently.

For EXAMPLE,considerthe VERY anti-gun state Hawaii, which has for many decades denied its citizens the right to carry EITHER CC or OC (yet nothing has been done about THAT seemingly ILLEGAL state of affairs, which is in complete violation of the 2nd Amendment/RKBA). What has the SCOTUS done about that? Or any other state so restrictive/infringing?

Maybe it's something the US Attorney Generalshould do: Sue states that deny people a right or the means to exercise a right, whatever the right is.That way, there'd bethe "big pockets" Feds suing a "big pockets" state (so justice doesn't have to be paid for on some poorindividual citizen's dime)... then let SCOTUS (if it can ever find its spine)AFFRIM the right in question.